Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On 21 March 2005 I made an order under Section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 amalgamating a number of divisions in Norfolk, Suffolk, Greater London, Cardiff and Derbyshire with effect from 1 April 2005, as follows:
	Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft Divisions are merged into East Norfolk and North Suffolk Division;
	Croydon and Wallington Divisions are merged into Croydon and Sutton Division; King's Lynn, East Dereham and Thetford Borough Divisions are merged into West Norfolk Division;
	Cardiff and Dynas Powis Divisions are merged into Cardiff and the Vale Division; Bakewell Division is abolished and its parishes are split between Derby and Scarsdale Divisions;
	and amalgamating the following Divisions in Norfolk with effect from 1 June 2005:
	St Faith's and Aylsham, Norwich City and Wymondham Divisions are merged into Central Norfolk Division.
	All the amalgamations were made at the request of the general commissioners in all the divisions with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the divisions concerned. I have placed a copy of the order amalgamating the divisions in the Libraries of both Houses.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) is well known to many Members of this House who have committed time and effort to work on behalf of the WFD, promoting democracy around the world through training; sharing experiences; and mentoring. I would like to make particular mention of the efforts of those Members who have served on, or are current members of, the WFD's board, and especially to the honourable Member for Ilford South, the chairman of the board.
	In May 2004, the FCO and WFD commissioned jointly a firm of consultants, River Path Associates, to conduct a full review of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The review was conducted according to government guidelines on reviewing non-departmental public bodies.
	The final report of the review has now been presented to me and I am placing copies of it in the Library of the House. The report is also available on the FCO website, www.fco.gov.uk.
	The Government have considered the recommendations of the review carefully. We are seized in particular of a need for the WFD to operate with proper accountability and transparency. We have decided not to accept the recommendation that the work of the non-political part of the WFD, known as WFD Central, be brought back into the FCO. WFD Central will remain in its current form and the FCO will work with it to continue to improve the effectiveness of WFD Central in building democracy overseas. This decision is based on two points: (i) our judgment that WFD Central deserves recognition for the progress made in recent years; and (ii) the added benefits of conducting democracy building work through an arms-length body, rather than directly through government.
	We have also considered carefully the review's recommendations on the WFD's work with British political parties. We see merit in the recommendation of the reviewer, that this work be funded through Parliament. But this is an important issue and we want to be sure that we reach a decision that has broad support.
	To this end I am announcing today the beginning of a three-month consultation exercise on the future of the WFD. I would encourage all Members of both Houses to involve themselves in the consultation.
	There are two elements to the exercise:
	consideration of the River Path Associates report; and
	consideration of a response to the report, produced by WFD.
	These documents are all available on the FCO website. Alternatively, I would be happy to send copies to Members who write to me to request them.
	We will also be seeking views from a wide-range of others in the consultation process. We will particularly target those who know the WFD, but will also welcome views from specialists in democracy promotion from within the UK and abroad. I would encourage Members to make this exercise known to those they believe might be interested in commenting.

UN Report: In Larger Freedom

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence previously announced to the House on 21 July 2004 our intention to pay off the Northern Ireland Patrol Vessel (NIPV) Squadron by April 2007 (Official Report, House of Commons, col. 347). Further discussions have taken place with the chief constable and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have now decided that the vessels will be decommissioned in September 2005.
	When the NIPV cease operations, the maritime security of Northern Ireland will be maintained under the same arrangements as the rest of the United Kingdom. While there will be no permanent assignments of Royal Navy vessels for Northern Ireland, the chief constable is satisfied that routine Royal Navy activities around the UK and specific intelligence-led maritime operations will deliver an appropriate level of support to the police in countering terrorism.

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In the 2004 Defence White Paper Future Capabilities we announced plans to merge the fleet and Second Sea Lord headquarters in Portsmouth. This is part of a programme to create a modem, effective and efficient command structure for the Royal Navy. It will build on the collocation of both headquarters in Portsmouth in 2002 and the enhanced capabilities provided by the fleet's new Leach Building on Whale Island, which opened last year.
	Since that announcement work has progressed and our aim is to stand up the new merged headquarters on 1 April 2006. By cutting out duplication, streamlining back-office functions, and maximising the benefits of collocation, modern working practices and better IT, we expect to redirect significant resources to the front line. In particular, the new headquarters will require some 450 fewer posts (125 military, 325 civilian) than the two existing headquarters. These reductions will contribute to the wider MoD manpower reductions also announced in the White Paper.
	We are doing everything possible to mitigate the impact on the people concerned. Our current plans envisage that the civilian reductions, most of which will take place in the Portsmouth area, will be achieved through a combination of natural wastage and voluntary early release. Should compulsory redundancies prove necessary, we will do all we can to keep them to a minimum. There will be no service redundancies. Staff and the trades unions are being kept fully informed of developments through meetings, briefings and a formal consultation exercise.
	Creation of the new headquarters will have no impact on the Royal Navy's footprint in the Portsmouth area. The main focus of the headquarters will be Whale Island, but elements of the new command structure will remain in the naval base.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On 4 April 2005, the Department for Constitutional Affairs introduces the new Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, hereafter referred to as the AIT, under the provisions of Section 26 of the Asylum & Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
	At present, ministerial and non-ministerial correspondence concerning asylum and immigration appeals are the responsibility for the Home Office and handled by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
	As from 4 April 2005, the responsibility for dealing with all new correspondence (ministerial and non- ministerial) items relating to appeals will be transferred to the Department for Constitutional Affairs and will be handled by the AIT.
	Correspondence should be addressed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Ministerial Correspondence Unit, Selborne House, 54 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QW.
	This change will also affect correspondence relating to asylum and immigration appeals lodged before 4 April.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: A note has been placed with the Mental Capacity Bill's draft code of practice in the Libraries of both Houses. The note lets Members know what changes we expect to make to the draft code as a result of discussions on the Bill and code in both Houses.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Sport and Tourism (Richard Caborn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	This Statement provides information about a number of amendments tabled on the Gambling Bill, which is presently being considered in Committee in the House of Lords. The Government believe it may be of assistance to Members of both Houses if they were to provide their view on amendments to the Bill that have not yet been considered formally, but which have been the subject of extensive discussions between Ministers and Members in both Houses, as well as a range of interested parties. The Government have also placed a copy of associated letters to opposition spokespersons, setting out their position on all amendments tabled to the Bill, in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The Government hope that this Statement reflects the level of consensus that these constructive discussions have brought about, which has been reflected in a considerable number of improving amendments being tabled by the Government. References to clauses and schedules in this Statement are to those in the Gambling Bill, in the draft brought from the House of Commons on 25 January.
	Schedule 1 and 2: Payment to Enter Lotteries and Betting Prize Competitions
	This section deals with amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that seek to clarify the meaning of payment to enter which concern entry into betting prize competitions and lotteries.
	The Government acknowledge that effective definitions in this area are of great importance, and sympathise with the intention of the amendments. However, we do not believe that the amendments would add clarity to the schedules or improve their effect.
	We consider that the addition of the words "has been calculated so as to reflect", in relation to the cost of goods that may constitute payment to enter the competition or lottery, would not make a practical difference. Where the cost of an item "reflects" the opportunity to enter an arrangement, the price of that item must include a calculated increase that is attributable to the opportunity to enter the arrangement. We also believe that amendments relating to the "normal rate" are unnecessary as this will necessarily exclude any supplement or premium that reflects the opportunity to enter the lottery or competition.
	The Government agree with amendments requiring free communications—offered as an alternative to a payment to enter the competition or lottery—to be genuine, realistic and not unduly inconvenient nor more expensive than payment to enter. We believe, however, that this is the effect of Schedules 1 and 2. Paragraph 8 of both schedules requires a choice between paying to enter and entering through a form of communication. If the communication is not a genuine or realistic option, the requirement for a choice cannot be said to have been fulfilled.
	This paragraph also requires that the free communication route must be no less convenient than entry by paying. This is designed precisely to rule out schemes that are not genuine or realistic, if, for example, an individual has a choice between paying to enter, and travelling to an inconveniently located office. It will not prevent companies using what might be legitimate free entry routes such as e-mail.
	Amendments have been tabled that seek to clarify that a requirement to pay in order to collect a prize will only be deemed to be payment to enter where the payment is to the arrangement promoter or his associate. The Government do not believe these amendments are necessary: payment for anything other than possession of the prize itself cannot be payment to enter for the purposes of the Bill.
	Clause 14: Definition of Lottery
	This section concerns the definition of "lottery" included in Clause 14 of the Gambling Bill and, specifically, amendments tabled about the level of skill needed to fall outside lottery regulation.
	A number of amendments have been tabled that represent contrasting views in the debate over the level of skill required in a prize competition for it to fall outside lottery regulation under the Bill.
	The Government do not agree with the amendments which would weaken the protection of charity lotteries, offering commercial prize competitions a wide discretion to encroach on the area of activity that the Government believe should remain the preserve of charity lotteries. Conversely, the Government believe that the amendments that introduce the notion of "substantial skill" into the definition of a lottery bring an unreasonably stiff test.
	The Government prefer their own amendments to Clause 14, which seek to make the definition of lottery more user-friendly, without diluting the level of the test or the principle underpinning it.
	The government amendments introduce the notion of "reasonable expectation" into the test. This changes the nature of the test from a strictly empirical one to a normative one, and thereby improves its practical application. It is also important to note too that the Bill provides for a gambling commission with the powers it needs to investigate and tackle any abuses.
	Clause 24: Sports Betting Codes of Practice 
	This section concerns proposals relating to sports betting codes of practice and their inclusion in the Gambling Bill.
	Amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill would require the proposed Gambling Commission to issue to betting licensees codes of practice on betting on sports. Clause 24 of the Bill already provides the commission with powers to issue such codes.
	The Government agree that protecting the integrity of sport from potential threats posed by betting will be a priority for the commission. Indeed, one of the commission's licensing objectives is to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way. The Government also published, last month, their code of practice for betting on sports. In future, this code will complement codes of practice issued by the Gambling Commission. The Government believe, therefore, that further requirements to issue codes of practice are unnecessary, as both the powers and objectives of the commission are already in place to tackle this issue.
	Clause 25: Guidance to Local Authorities
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that would involve the Government, rather than the proposed Gambling Commission, offering guidance to local licensing authorities about the exercise of their functions under the proposed legislation.
	Amendments tabled require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to licensing authorities under Clause 25, in place of the Gambling Commission. The Government disagree with these proposed amendments. The commission, not the Government, will be the primary regulator of gambling in Great Britain and, with its experience of regulating and communicating with the industry, will be the main source of knowledge on gambling issues.
	The commission, along with licensing authorities will also be responsible for monitoring and inspecting gambling activities, ensuring those activities take place in accordance with licence conditions.
	In the light of this, the Government hold to the view that the Gambling Commission is best placed to guide licensing authorities in the pursuit of their functions.
	Clause 26: Duty to Advise Secretary of State
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that relate to the release of advice offered by the proposed Gambling Commission to the Government.
	Amendments tabled require the Gambling Commission to make any advice given to the Secretary of State available to the general public. The Government agree with the objectives of this amendment, but do not think it necessary to add this amendment to the Bill.
	The Gambling Commission will be bound, like other bodies, by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Requiring the commission to publish all the advice given to the Secretary of State will, however, put an unnecessary burden on the Gambling Commission. However, where it is appropriate to do so (having regard to the 2000 Act), the Government agree that the Gambling Commission should make public the advice it gives to the Secretary of State.
	After Clause 26: Test Purchasing 
	This section concerns government amendments that have been tabled to the Gambling Bill to allow the Gambling Commission to assess whether the offences under the Bill are being complied with.
	The main purpose of the amendments is to enable test purchasing to be carried out to assess compliance with under-age gambling. The commission will be able to use children and young persons in test purchasing activities to assess whether the offences of under-age gambling are being complied with. The amendments follow the model suggested by the Trading Standards Institute, which is involved in the protection of children from harm and the prevention of children from access to restricted goods, such as alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets.
	Clause 35: Territorial Application 
	This section addresses concerns raised by remote gambling operators about licensing of remote gambling under the Gambling Bill. The Government have held detailed discussions with the operators on these issues, and have tabled government Amendments Nos. 79, 82, 84, 89, 142, 143 and 158 accordingly.
	Clause 35(4)(a) of the Bill defines remote gambling equipment as that which registers a person's participation in the gambling. Operators believed this an unduly onerous approach. Amendment No. 80, therefore, would require gambling operators to only verify the identity of customers. The Government do not think this sufficient, so government Amendment No. 79 requires this and requires operators to keep records of customers' gaming and transaction history.
	Amendment No. 81 deals with operator concerns that Clause 35(4)(c) would capture all poker-room equipment used by British operators, which is often based overseas and whose location in Great Britain need not be necessary for the effective regulation of such remote gambling. The Government acknowledge that this is a legitimate concern and accordingly tabled government Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 158 which allow the Gambling Commission to take a case-by-case approach to deciding which items of gambling equipment can be located outside Great Britain.
	Amendment No. 83 and government Amendment No. 82 address the same issue—the records which remote gambling licensees must keep. We believe that Amendment No. 83 would retain a requirement on the operators to maintain financial records, whereas government Amendment No. 82 has withdrawn this requirement and replaced it with a requirement to record game result history.
	Amendment No. 84 is a minor drafting amendment, which recognises that equipment other than computers may be used for remote gambling e.g. mobile phones.
	Amendment No. 88 seeks to exclude remote communications software from the offence of installing or supplying gambling software. The Government agree with this objective, but believe that government Amendment No. 89 achieves it more effectively by clarifying that a person does not supply or install gambling software if they provide solely communications equipment—e.g. a mobile telephone network—even if it is subsequently used to download gambling software.
	Amendment No.141 would require the Gambling Commission to regulate equipment outside its jurisdiction. The Government believe this impractical, but have instead tabled Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 158, which allow the Gambling Commission flexibility to judge which equipment can be located off-shore.
	The Government are confident that their amendments, which were shown in draft to the Association of Remote Gambling Operators, deal effectively with the remaining issues of concern to the remote gambling industry.
	Clause 41: Cheating 
	This section concerns amendments that have been tabled to the Gambling Bill that seek to alter or supplement the definition of cheating in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 90 seeks to replace Clause 41(1), which makes it an offence to cheat at gambling (without defining cheating) with a new subsection which includes a definition of cheating. The Government appreciate that the intention of the amendment is to make the scope of the offence more specific; but we believe that, while it may achieve this objective, it involves undesirable consequences.
	First, and most importantly, it narrows the scope of the offence, by excluding forms of cheating which do not alter the element of chance in a game of chance or its outcome. Secondly, by tying the definition of cheating specifically to games of chance it raises a question mark about cheating in the context of other forms of gambling than gaming, such as betting and lotteries.
	The Government believe that it is an important strength of Clause 41 that the expression "cheating" is not defined. This will enable the commission and the courts, in prosecuting and punishing cheats, to deal with the full range of culpable conduct. The Government believe that the practical effect of a specific definition (however desirable from a drafting perspective) will make things easier, not harder, for cheats.
	Amendment No. 91 appears to be intended to broaden the definition of the offence. It would bring within the definition of the offence any act which allows an advantage not intended by the manufacturer or operator of a game. The Government fear, however, that the effect of the amendment will be uncertain, because the operator's intention can only be a wholly subjective concept.
	Amendment No. 92 seems intended to ensure that the offence of cheating catches the type of scam that involves using electronic equipment to reduce the odds on games like roulette, of which there was a high profile alleged incident last year at a London casino. The amendment makes specific provision concerning use of equipment in a casino that could be used to record, analyse or predict the outcome of, or the manner in which a game is played. The amendment would make the possession of any electronic equipment capable of recording games in a casino an offence. The Government are unclear about whether such activity will always constitute cheating, and accordingly think it unsafe to accept the amendment.
	Following the incident last year, the Government did consider carefully the use of electronic equipment to narrow the odds of casino games, and whether we needed to strengthen the offence of cheating in the Bill. We concluded that the Bill already covers everything that it should. A person who does anything unfairly to increase the chance of winning is cheating at gambling, and already falls within the offence. We are afraid that being more specific than this would risk making the clause too complicated, and vulnerable to evasion.
	Clause 50: Employment to Provide Facilities for Gambling
	This section concerns amendments to the Gambling Bill, which relate to the employment of children, particularly those intended to allow gambling operators to employ children to work on "category D" machines and otherwise than in the provision of gambling in betting offices, adult gaming centres and casinos.
	The Government believe that children should not be employed in a way that involves interfering with any category of gaming machine, even "category D" machines.
	The control of machines is an adult responsibility and we think it would be irresponsible to allow children to be involved. Of course, children can be employed in family entertainment centres and in other places, to man the change counter or to serve food. There is no harm in that and the Bill allows it to continue.
	The Bill prevents children entering betting offices and adult gaming centres when they are being used in reliance on the premises licence, and the Government think this is an important principle. The Bill does not prevent persons aged under 18 entering these premises at other times, however, so that 16 and 17 year-old apprentice joiners could work on the refurbishment of the premises.
	Clause 58: Age Limit for Category D Gaming Machine 
	This section concerns government amendments to the Gambling Bill which requires that the Secretary of State, before setting any age limit for playing "category D" gaming machines, consults the Gambling Commission, the industry and those with knowledge of the social problems relating to gambling. Government amendments also allow age limits to be set for only certain types of gaming machine e.g. we could exclude cranes and grabbers from any age limit.
	These government amendments follow up the commitment made by the Government during the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, to give Ministers power to limit the effect of any new age requirements for category D machines, to particular types of gaming machines.
	Government amendments insert new subsection (3) into Clause 58. This subsection means that, before using this power, the Secretary of State must consult the Gambling Commission, relevant parts of the gambling industry and people involved with problem gambling. Government amendments also insert new subsection (4) into Clause 58. This subsection allows the Government to distinguish different types of category D machines. This means that the Government can exclude machines such as penny pushers and crane machines from any future age restriction, if necessary.
	Clause 79: Credit and Inducements 
	This section concerns government amendments proposed to the Gambling Bill which prevent the use of credit cards for gambling payments in casinos. This delivers on a commitment the Government offered at Second Reading.
	The Bill as drafted already prohibits the use of credit cards in gaming machines, and these amendments extend the effect of that prohibition to all gambling in a casino. The amendments tabled do allow cash machines to remain in casinos, as long as there is no commercial relationship between the casino and the machine provider. The casino must also ensure that conditions about the location of such machines are observed properly.
	Clause 91: Pool Betting Operating Licence
	This section concerns amendments to the Gambling Bill relating to greyhound pool betting.
	The Government understand the concerns of the greyhound racing industry. At present, occupiers of greyhound tracks have an exclusive right to offer pool bets on the races taking place at their tracks. Betting offices cannot offer pool bets on greyhound tracks. The Government proposed to lift this restriction; to widen consumer choice and allow the more substantial off-course pools to flow into on-course pools, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of greyhound pools.
	The Government acknowledge, however, that there have been concerns expressed in the greyhound industry about the potentially disruptive effects of a rapid move to an open market.
	Following detailed discussions with representatives of the greyhound industry, the Government have therefore decided to table their own amendment on this issue. This will require pool bets on greyhound racing to be offered in betting premises only where they are offered in accordance with an arrangement with the greyhound track occupier. This restriction will apply until 31 December 2012, after which it will cease to have effect. The Government hope this transitional measure will provide reassurance to the greyhound industry, but note that it will also allow a wider range of betting choices for the betting consumer than exist at present.
	Clause 97: Mandatory Conditions of Lottery Operating Licence
	This section concerns amendments that have been tabled to the Gambling Bill that seek to alter or supplement the limits on the proceeds of society and local authority lotteries licensed under Part 5.
	Amendment No. 147 seeks to remove the limits altogether; Amendment No. 148 would increase the maximum permitted proceeds of any one lottery £10 million; Amendment No. 149 would remove any limit on the annual proceeds of a lottery (currently £10 million); Amendment No. 150 doubles the maximum prize that can be won in a lottery to £50,000 (if 10 per cent of the proceeds is less than £50,000); and Amendment No. 152 would make it a statutory obligation for the Gambling Commission to review proceeds and prize limits every three years.
	The Government acknowledge that society lotteries raise a great deal of money for good causes, in part as a result of the recent increases in maximum permitted prizes and proceeds. In most cases, it seems unlikely that the limits in the Bill will act as a restraint for most lotteries—as few approach the limits on proceeds set out in the Bill.
	The Government do think it important to retain some control over the size of large society lotteries. In particular, prizes for these types of lottery are limited to a maximum 10 per cent of the proceeds of the lottery. If the limits on the proceeds were removed it could lead to a situation where people were tempted to gamble more to chase higher prizes. We think the existing limits, which were doubled in 2002, are fair, but we agree that there should be flexibility to alter them.
	The Secretary of State has the power to vary any monetary amount or percentage in Clause 97. She will, of course, keep these limits under review and increase them as necessary. With respect to the proposals in Amendment No. 152 for a triennial review, it will be well known that the arrangements for a review have arisen as a matter of custom and practice on the part of the Gaming Board. We expect those arrangements to continue, and the Bill already makes provision, in Clause 26, for the Gambling Commission to offer advice to the Secretary of State.
	Amendment No. 151 is intended to remove the requirement that electronic tickets must be sent in a way that enables them to be retained, replacing it with a requirement only that the information contained on it should be accessible. The Government do not think it prudent to accept this amendment.
	We do think it important that a person should be sent his ticket in a way that enables him to retain it, whether electronically or otherwise. This is both so that he can prove his entry, and so that the information is there to be checked if necessary by those responsible for monitoring gambling activity. We believe these are reasonable requirements.
	Clause 121: Levy 
	This section concerns amendments which have been tabled to the Gambling Bill which seek to ensure that any levy raised under Clause 121 is not raised in such a way that society lotteries pay more than reflects their impact on problem gambling or their relative size in terms of gambling revenue.
	The Government hope that it will not be necessary to commence the levy provisions of Clause 121. If, however, that proves necessary, there are a number of options for determining the levy allowed under the current Clause 121—including provision to determine it by reference to receipts. In raising any levy, the Government will of course discuss with the Gambling Commission how best to ensure that contributions, including any from the society lottery sector, are fair and reasonable. We do not consider that we should limit our options in the way that these amendments imply.
	In addition, we do think that to tie the levy applicable solely to the incidence of problem gambling—whether or not linked also to revenue, and for society lotteries only, would be unfair. We, therefore, believe that the possible operation of a levy should be dealt with in the round, in the manner facilitated by Clause 121.
	Clause 157 etc: Fees
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that would remove the Secretary of State's power to set annual premises licence fees. Licensing authorities would be able to set their own fees for premises licences in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
	The Gambling Bill gives to the Secretary of State a power (in respect of England and Wales) to set bands of fees for premises licences, with a prescribed maximum. This maximum is proposed because the Government believe it important that fees are fair and consistent. Within these bands, authorities will be able to set the precise fee in order for them to be able to recover their costs. We recognise that, in some circumstances, it would be appropriate to devolve fee-setting to licensing authorities, so long as the principle of cost-recovery is maintained.
	Therefore, the Secretary of State has a power under Clause 206 to devolve fee-setting to some, or all, licensing authorities. The Government have been liaising, and will continue to liaise, with the Local Government Association and LACORS regarding the setting of all fees charged by licensing authorities under the Gambling Bill. The Government consider that this approach balances a desire for a degree of local autonomy with a reasonable desire on the part of gambling operators for a level of consistency.
	Clause 166: Default Conditions
	This section concerns amendments to the Gambling Bill that seek to restrict the opening times of betting offices during winter months.
	The Government intend to use powers under Clause 166 (default conditions), to set opening hours for gambling premises. The Government have no detailed proposals to make about the future opening hours of betting offices, other than to confirm that they believe they should be standard over the year. The Government will continue to consider this matter in consultation with all interested parties.
	Clause 174: Bingo Door Supervision
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that address requirements for door supervision of gambling premises. Amendment No. 250 would exclude bingo hall door supervisors from needing to be licensed, as security operatives, under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The Government have now tabled government Amendments Nos. 247, 248, 249 and 381. These ensure that where bingo (and casino) operators use their own staff for door supervision purposes, they continue to be exempt from being licensed under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. We believe that the controls in the Bill are sufficient to regulate these matters. As a result, there is no longer a need for Amendment No. 250. We understand that the Bingo Association is also satisfied that the matter has been dealt with satisfactorily.
	After Clause 177: Christmas Day 
	This section concerns government amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill. The Government noted concerns in the House of Commons and House of Lords about the availability of commercial gambling services on Christmas Day. Accordingly, the Government have tabled Amendment No. 251, which will have the effect of preventing licensed premises from being used to offer facilities for gambling on Christmas day.
	Clause 230: Gaming Machines: Categories A to D
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that seek to allow the practice of trading up of two smaller prizes from a gaming machine, for a larger one to continue. The Government agree with this aspiration and believe that this is achieved in Clause 337(3), which permits trading up so long as the value of the prize received is not greater than the total value of the prizes that could have been lawfully won by the player.
	However, the proposal to introduce the phrase "be permitted without restriction", which is included in amendments, is of concern to the Government because it could be interpreted to mean that trading up to any value of prize could occur. If the amendment were interpreted in this way, two £5 prizes could be traded up to a prize of the value of £100, which would clearly be undesirable.
	Clause 230: Gaming Machines: Categories A to D
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that would have the effect of making a triennial review of gaming machine stakes and prizes a statutory obligation. It also concerns amendments that would increase the maximum prize payable by a "category C" machine from £25, as proposed by the Government, to £35.
	A triennial review of stakes and prizes has been carried out by the Gaming Board for Great Britain, as a matter of custom and practice. However, the Government do not think it desirable to make the process binding. The proposed Gambling Commission (which will take on the responsibilities of the Gaming Board in this area) might have reason to undertake a review more frequently than every three years. Conversely, there may be circumstances that lead the commission to conclude that a review of stakes and prizes is certainly not appropriate. Nor would the Government wish to encourage an assumption that they had ruled out adjustments to stakes and prizes that were thought necessary in response to advice and research from sources other than the Gambling Commission, even if the Government would always consult the commission about the use of its powers in Part 10 to adjust stakes and prizes.
	As will be known, the Gaming Board for Great Britain recommended, in its triennial review last year, an increase in Category C machine prizes to £35.
	The Government gave careful consideration to the board's advice, but came to the conclusion that stakes and prizes for these gaming machines, which are available in pubs and other premises not dedicated to gambling, should stay where they are, pending the passage of this Bill. That means retaining the £25 maximum prize for category C machines for now, while keeping this under review in the future. The Government are not minded to change their view on this point.
	Clause 230: Gaming machines: Categories A to D 
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that seek to ensure that the stakes and prizes for "category D machines" under the Bill will be, respectively, 30p and £8.
	During the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords on 22 February, the Government announced that the existing maximum prize of £8 for gaming machines that offer non-monetary and non-exchangeable prizes (i.e. goods, like teddy bears) will remain. The Government have previously announced that maximum stake for these machines will remain at 30p.
	For other types of category gaming machine, like those that pay out in either cash or in tokens that can be accumulated and traded for significant prizes (known generally as "redemption" machines, the Government continue to take the view that the appropriate stake and prize limits for these machines are 10p and £5.
	Machines with cash or exchangeable prizes involve incentives for repeat play that the Government believe justifies a more cautious approach than for non-monetary and non-exchangeable prizes, particularly where these machines can be played by children. Clause 230 gives Ministers power to adjust stakes and prize limits for all categories of machine. The Government believe that this flexible approach is the correct one in relation to machine stakes and prizes.
	Clause 258: Preventing Repetitive Play
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that seek to ensure that the Gambling Commission cannot arbitrarily attach conditions to licences for rapid draw lotteries, without first having evidence that these lotteries are harmful.
	The Government agree with the intention of this amendment, and can confirm that they have has no desire to place restrictive conditions on lotteries in the absence of compelling evidence of harm.
	Following discussions with representatives of lottery providers, the Government have decided to take a slightly different approach to this issue, but with the same objective of protecting consumers.
	The Government have therefore tabled amendments to delete Clause 258. The Government intend, instead, to rely upon the powers in Clauses 73, 75, and 76 to facilitate such conditions, as are necessary, on the offering of lotteries. Under Clauses 73 and 75, the Gambling Commission may attach conditions to lottery operating licences. Under Clause 76 the Secretary of State may make regulations which require specified conditions to be added to operating licences. The Government will consider, with the Gambling Commission and lottery providers, whether it is necessary to use these powers in relation to lotteries. They will do so through the processes for consultation provided for in Parts 2 and 5 of the Bill.
	Schedule 13: Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits and Clause 279: Removal of Exemption
	This section concerns amendments tabled to the Gambling Bill that address the provision of gaming machines in pubs and other alcohol licensed premises.
	Amendment No. 316 seeks to prevent a licensing authority from taking away the entitlements of alcohol licensed premises to provide gaming and up to two gaming machines until representations relating to the licensing objectives have been received and upheld. Amendment No. 310 imposes the same requirements on a licensing authority before it can cancel a licensed premises gaming machine permit.
	Amendment No. 317 removes the condition under which a hearing is only required to be held if the licence holder requests one. It provides for a hearing to be held specifically to consider the relevant representations; and for that hearing to take place unless the authority, the licensee and each person who made representations agreed that a hearing is unnecessary. Amendment No. 311 makes the same provisions with regard to the cancellation of a licensed premises gaming machine permit.
	The Government take the view that these amendments are unnecessary. Clause 279 and paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 already restrict the circumstances in which an authority can take away an alcohol licensed premises' entitlements to offer gaming and gaming machines. We are confident that licensing authorities will act reasonably in the exercise of their functions in this regard. If the licence holder believes the authority's actions are unjustified, there is a right of appeal to the magistrates' court (or, in Scotland, to the sheriff). We believe this provides an adequate protection for licence holders.
	There are also dangers in preventing a licensing authority being able to act unless it has considered representations from a responsible authority. There may be cases where the authority has received information from other sources, or has gathered on its own initiative, that would justify it in taking action urgently to remove gaming or gaming machine entitlements. In these circumstances, the amendments would potentially put consumers and children at risk, if the licensing authority could act only in response to representations.
	The Bill also already provides for a licensee to request a hearing if he or she wants one. The Government believe that this provides sufficient opportunity for the licensee to make representations to a licensing authority before any entitlements can be taken away.
	Clause 325: Foreign gambling 
	This section concerns amendments to the Gambling Bill proposed by the Government. These amendments provide further clarification in respect of foreign gambling. Government Amendment No. 345 is a technical amendment designed to rectify an overlap between Parts 11 and 16 of the Bill. As a result of this amendment, lotteries will be regulated, largely, under Part 11. This will mean that advertising foreign lotteries will not be prohibited. However, there will be little point in doing so because no ticket for such a lottery will be permitted to be sold to a person in Great Britain.
	Government Amendment No. 346 fulfils a commitment that the Government gave to clarify the position that gambling operators based in Gibraltar will be permitted to advertise in the United Kingdom. Government Amendment No. 347 widens the Secretary of State's powers to specify "places" as well as "countries" that can be "white listed" under Clause 325(3).

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The chairman of Monitor (the statutory name of which is the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts) announced on 1 April 2005 that, in accordance with Section 6 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, Monitor authorised the following NHS trusts to operate as NHS foundation trusts from 1 April 2005, as part of its second group in wave 1a:
	Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust
	Frimley Park Hospitals NHS Trust
	Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
	Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust
	The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Trust
	The Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust
	Monitor has deferred consideration of the applications from Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust, East Somerset NHS Trust and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust. Further decisions on these trusts may be made at a later date by Monitor.
	West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust have not been authorised. In the coming weeks, officials at the department will work with these trusts to ensure that full support is provided for a further application for authorisation at a later date.
	A copy of Monitor's press notice has been placed in the Library.
	Monitor's announcement brings the total number of NHS foundation trusts to 31.

Lord Warner: Following continuing interest in both Houses about variations across the country in the use of cancer drugs approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), this Statement informs the House of the key messages from cancer network action plans provided to the Department of Health by strategic health authorities (SHAs) following the National Cancer Director's report of 14 June 2004 on this subject.
	SHAs have confirmed that:
	funding is available for NICE approved cancer drugs;
	where cancer networks were significantly below the national average for specific drug usage their investigations have identified that the drugs are available if required or there are reasons for low usage such as clinical preference for alternatives and cross boundary flows;
	where areas such as staffing and capacity have been highlighted, actions to address them are being taken including demand and capacity modelling, recruiting to new posts (including medical and clinical oncology and nursing) and investment in infrastructure such as new facilities; and
	many networks have taken the opportunity to strengthen their arrangements generally to ensure appropriate implementation of NICE appraisals.
	The National Cancer Director has analysed the action plans and said that they are encouraging, confirming that the profile of implementing NICE appraisals has increased and that where problems have been identified they have been, or are in the process of being, addressed. A repeat analysis will be conducted in the autumn to confirm if variations have been reduced as a result of this action.
	A letter to key cancer stakeholders in the National Health Service, voluntary sector and pharmaceutical industry has also been issued today setting out these messages in more detail. Copies will be placed in the Library.
	The department will continue its work to support the NHS in implementing NICE guidance.